Copyright © 2013 Todd Daniel Kube
All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by and means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction.
A BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND MISSIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HOMOGENEOUS UNIT PRINCIPLE AND
ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EVANGELISM AND CHURCH GROWTH IN NORTH AMERICA
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Ministry
by
Todd Daniel Kube May 2013
APPROVAL SHEET
A BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND MISSIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HOMOGENEOUS UNIT PRINCIPLE AND
ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EVANGELISM AND CHURCH GROWTH IN NORTH AMERICA
Todd Daniel Kube
Read and Approved by:
Jeffrey K. Walters (Faculty Supervisor)
Timothy K. Beougher
Date
To Traci Lynn,
ד ֶז ֵע וֹדּ ְג ֶנ ְכּ
together as one in spirit and love, living life and serving God
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... vii
LIST OF TABLES ... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ... x
PREFACE ... xi
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
The HUP ... 2
Purpose and Goals ... 8
Rationale ... 9
Definitions ... 9
Limitations ... 22
General Direction ... 22
2. THE HUP: TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION ... 23
Classical Definition ... 23
Dictionary Definition ... 25
Working Definition ... 26
HUP Illustrations ... 38
Concluding Thoughts ... 44
v
Chapter Page 3. A BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND MISSIOLOGICAL
ANALYSIS OF THE HOMOGENEOUS UNIT PRINCIPLE ... 46
God’s Church ... 51
God’s Mission ... 64
God’s Work ... 89
God’s Tool ... 98
Biblical Paradigm ... 116
4. SURVEY RESULTS ... 119
Design ... 119
Purposes ... 120
Hypothesis ... 120
Instrumentation ... 121
Comprehensive Analysis ... 132
Concluding Thoughts ... 149
5. PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE HUP FOR THE LOCAL CHURCH SETTING ... 151
Divine Sovereignty... 155
Human Responsibility ... 167
Love Strategy ... 174
Name Identity ... 191
Appendix 1. AN EXPOSITION OF ACTS 2:42 ... 199
2. COVER LETTER AND SURVEY INSTRUMENTATION ... 205
vi
Appendix Page 3. SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY RESULTS ... 209
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 223
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.G.A.P.E. Asking God and Approaching People, Evangelistically CGM Church Growth Movement
LTEG Lausanne Theology and Education Group HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
HU Homogeneous Unit
HUC Homogeneous Church
HUP Homogeneous Unit Principle NA27 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament NASB New American Standard Bible, 1995
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Translation of κοινωνία ... 59
2. Church setting ... 122
3. Average attendance ... 123
4. Baptisms over a five-year period ... 124
5. Familiarity with key concepts ... 125
6. Community similarity ... 127
7. Evangelistic methodology ... 128
8. Outreach options ... 130
9. Baptisms to worship attendance percentage based on church setting ... 138
10. Baptisms to worship attendance percentage based on a knowledge of the HUP and related concepts ... 140
11. Baptisms to worship attendance percentage based on community understanding ... 143
12. Baptisms to worship attendance percentage based on evangelistic methodology ... 144
13. Baptisms to worship attendance percentage based on outreach activities ... 145
14. Total population ... 177
15. Population change ... 177
16. King George population breakdown: race, gender, and age ... 180
ix
Table Page
17. Community similarity ... 188
A1. General familiarity by church setting ... 210
A2. Respondents “very familiar” response to the HUP and other concepts ... 212
A3. Baptisms to worship attendance percentage trisected ... 214
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Simple HUs illustrated: gender relationship ... 10
2. Simple HUs illustrated: geographic relationship ... 11
3. HUs illustrated: gender and geographic relationship ... 11
4. People consciousness illustrated: gender and geographic relationship ... 13
5. God’s mission through the church ... 77
6. The communication of God’s salvation by the church ... 81
7. God’s work as grace ... 93
8. The HUP in God’s work ... 101
9. The healing of the invalid in God’s work ... 102
10. The role of prayer in the HUP ... 104
11. The HUP as the evangelistic mandate ... 104
12. The gospel proclamation in the HUP ... 105
13. Asking God and approaching people, evangelistically (A.G.A.P.E.) ... 118
14. Asking God and approaching people, evangelistically (A.G.A.P.E.) ... 196
xi PREFACE
To God be the glory. I thank God for His working in me and all around me. It is a life-changing event when I experience God at work in my life. I thank God for my Christian parents. I thank God for calling me into the ministry as a pastor and allowing me work with His church. People’s support, love, and prayers over the years have been critical in the demanding work of ministry.
I thank God for experiencing Him through the illumination of my mind by His Holy Spirit in revelation and wisdom. In general, I thank God for Southern Seminary for providing the intellectual and spiritual renewal which pastors need. I thank God for allowing me to hear His guidance when Chuck Lawless first suggested my doing a thesis on the homogeneous unit principle. Then, when Chuck left, I thank God for Jeff Walters, who helped me to pick up the ball and run with it until the goal-line was reached.
Above all, I thank God for giving me my “help-meet,” Traci, who was uniquely suitable for me. With her love, support, and encouragement, she helped me to persevere in accomplishing this task. As a devoted wife and mother of our children – Amy Michelle (“Beloved, who is like the Lord?”) and Gabrielle Amanda (“God is my strength and is worthy of love!”) – she is truly God’s best for me.
Todd D. Kube Mechanicsville, Virginia
May 2013
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
My ministry has been impacted by a variety of factors, but none more than the Church Growth Movement (CGM) in recent years.1 The founder of the CGM was a missionary to India, Donald A. McGavran.2 Of McGavran’s many contributions to missiological thought, one contribution has been the most controversial. John Wimber writes in the foreword to an important church growth book, “By far the most criticized and misunderstood of all church growth principles is the homogeneous unit principle (HUP).”3
1The CGM, partially defined, is a “discipline which investigates the nature, expansion, planting, multiplication, function, and health of Christian churches as they related to the effective implementation of God’s commission to ‘make disciples of all peoples’ (Matt. 28:19-20).” A. Scott Moreau, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), s.v. “Church Growth Movement,” by C. Peter Wagner. This partial definition is from the bylaws of the North American Society for Church Growth.
2“McGavran was the person who used the label ‘church growth’ to describe the missiological paradigm he was developing. The accepted date for the beginning of the Church Growth Movement is 1955, the year of the publication of [his book] The Bridges of God.” Ibid.
3C. Peter Wagner, Church Growth & The Whole Gospel: A Biblical Mandate (Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998), foreword. The body of literature concerning the HUP supports Wimber’s assertion. Cf. Thom S. Rainer, The Book of Church Growth: History, Theology, and Principles (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 254.
At this time, the homogeneous unit principle can best be understood as a “serious attempt to respect the dignity of individuals and the social units to which they belong, and to encourage their decisions for Christ to be religious decisions rather than social decisions.” Moreau, Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, s.v. “Homogeneous Unit Principle” by C. Peter Wagner. More information will follow in chap. 2 when the HUP is further explained.
Chap. 4 will examine survey results which will include whether or not and to what extent pastors are aware of the CGM as a discipline of study and more specifically, what knowledge and application of the homogeneous unit principle do they currently have and use.
2
Criticism and misunderstanding have led to a lack of conversation concerning the HUP as a powerful tool in both the numerical and the spiritual growth of the church.
Kent R. Hunter writes, “It used to be that church growth people talked a lot about the homogeneous unit principle. However, now those words are rarely used.”4 This ministry research thesis will continue the conversation of the HUP. To begin this conversation, a rudimentary understanding of the HUP and the controversy that surrounds it will serve as a precursor to the purpose, goals, and rationale of this thesis.
The HUP
The HUP “states an undeniable fact. Human beings do build barriers around their own societies” and that “people like to become Christians without crossing . . . [those] barriers.”5 Thus, the principle is that evangelistic efforts should respect those barriers.6 The barriers may be race, language, class, et cetera.
The Controversy
The controversy arises when those barriers are respected and the resulting church still has cultural barriers of race, language, class, et cetera. Critics of the HUP
4Kent R. Hunter, “What Ever Happened to the Homogeneous Unit Principle?” Global Church Growth 27, no. 14 (1990): 1.
5Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, rev. and ed. C. Peter Wagner, 3rd ed.
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990), 163, emphasis added. By emphasizing “like to become,” the distinction is being made between a sociological preference and not an ecclesiastical necessity.
6As Chuck Van Engen explains, adding the term “principle” to “homogeneous unit” was actually done by McGavran’s most famous student, C. Peter Wagner. Chuck Van Engen, “Is the Church for Everyone? Planting Multi-Ethnic Congregations in North America,” Global Missiology, http://ojs.
globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/viewFile/122/353 (accessed March 28, 2013). The addition of the word principle by Wagner elevated the HUP into a theological rule instead of a phenomenological tool.
3
argue that the resulting church and hence the growth of the universal church is not what God desires. Orlando Costas writes,
Not all church growth is good. There is good and bad, positive and negative, healthy and unwholesome, Christian and demonic church growth. Only to the extent that the growth of the church takes place in a liberating context; only when it affects in depth both the personal life of men and women and their structured life situations can the growth of the church be understood as a legitimate expression of God’s mission.7
The church has three options with relation to cultural barriers and evangelistic efforts. One, the church could first try and correct the barriers and then evangelize. Two, the church could respect the barriers and grow the church regardless of the barriers. Or three, the church could try and correct the barriers and evangelize at the same time.
For McGavran, cultural barriers during the discipling stage are not as
important as the greater importance of reaching people for Christ.8 Those barriers can be broken down during the perfecting stage.
No one should minimize the importance of perfecting. At the same time, all should be certain that undiscipled pagan multitudes must be added to the Lord before they can be perfected. . . . Today’s great vision, which calls the churches to
7Orlando E. Costas, The Church and Its Mission: A Shattering Critique from the Third World (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1974), 310.
8“Discipling” for McGavran means “helping a people (a segment of non-Christian society) turn from non-Christian faith to Christ.” McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 123. Discipling describes the pre-conversion state. For McGavran, discipling does not include the process of becoming more like Christ. McGavran calls this process “perfecting,” and perfecting deals with the post-conversion state: “Discipling was to be followed by perfecting, that is, by the whole complex process of growth in grace, ethical improvement, and the conversion of individuals in that first and succeeding generations.”
Ibid., 123.
This differentiation between a discipling and perfecting stage is not consistent with the contemporary use of the term “to disciple” or of discipleship and has led to much of the confusion
surrounding the HUP. “A person becomes a disciple of Jesus when he or she confesses Jesus as Savior and God and is regenerated by the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:3-8; Titus 3:5). The participles “baptizing” and
“teaching” in Matt 28:18 describe activities through which the new disciple grows in discipleship. Growth includes both identification with Jesus’ death and resurrection (baptism) and obedience to all that Jesus had commanded the disciples in his earthly ministry (teaching).” Moreau, Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, s.v. “Disciple, Discipleship” by Michael J. Wilkins.
4
rectify injustices in their neighborhoods and nations, is good; but it must not supplant the vision that calls them to make disciples of all nations. . . . The least perfected church is superior to its non-Christian origins.9
The controversy can be characterized in some degree as miscommunication.
Hunter writes,
The reason for rejection by so many may lie in poor communication. That may partly be due to deficiency among church growth teachers and partly due to the enormous paradigm shift or world-view change that is necessary for many to grasp the homogeneous unit principle. Further, the fires of controversy may be fanned by the conceptual nature of the homogeneous unit principle which many people, especially literalists, would find difficult to internalize.10
The controversy also goes beyond miscommunication. If the controversy were simply a matter of miscommunication, there would be hope that the controversy could be eliminated with better communication. It is not the intent of this thesis to suggest that the miscommunication can be entirely corrected, because at the heart of the
miscommunication are differing core values which affect one’s epistemological view of the world, and in this case, the church.11
One area of confusion and miscommunication is the term itself. In the term HUP, the word “principle” should be understood as descriptive of the culture, not descriptive of the church. When the word “principle” is incorrectly applied toward the church, then it is understood as an ecclesiastical necessity. That is, because the culture has placed on itself certain barriers, the church also needs to have those barriers.
9McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 123-24.
10Hunter, “What Ever Happened to the Homogeneous Unit Principle?” 1.
11It is beyond the scope of this thesis to describe all the different core values and varying views of the church. Some core values will be discussed later. For example, most church growth proponents accept the evangelistic priority of the church. The evangelistic priority is a core value.
5
However, when the word “principle” is correctly applied toward the culture, then the term can be understood as a tool of social analysis. That is, what are the barriers that this culture has placed on itself, and what impact will those barriers have on the evangelistic mandate? Skip Bell writes,
To observe how a church is growing is not to say that is how a church should grow, or to suggest that such a correlate is even within God’s will. It is mere observation.
Since early church growth researchers were for the most part missiologists, they were distinctly sensitive to implications of separation or prejudice the homogeneous unit principle presented as they observed it in diverse world cultures. They applied careful research to the question of church growth, and their finding may be received in one perspective as objective observation and not prescriptive.12
While cultural barriers may well be initially respected in the discipling stage, they are not intended to be ignored in the perfecting stage. The provisional makeup of the church in the discipleship stage is not the “ultimate ideal” of the church in the
perfecting stage.13 McGavran writes, “The church exists not for herself but for the world.
She has been saved in order to save others. She always has a twofold task: winning unbelievers to Christ and growing in grace. While the tasks overlap, they are distinct.
Neither should be slighted.”14
For McGavran, although both should be done, the evangelistic mandate takes priority over the cultural mandate. He writes,
Parallelism is seen as the right policy in mission. This is the doctrine, conscious or unconscious, that all the many activities carried on by missions are of equal value.
They are parallel thrusts. No one of them as basic priority. . . Certainly many things should be done. The task is extremely complex; but this complexity must
12Skip Bell, “What is Wrong with the Homogeneous Unit Principle? The HUP in the 21st Century Church,” Journal of the American Society for Church Growth 14 (Fall 2003): 4, emphasis added.
13Rainer, The Book of Church Growth, 262.
14McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 124.
6
never be made to mean an aimless parallelism. World evangelism is a chief and irreplaceable work of the church.15
Hence, the discipling stage is the most important stage, though perfecting cannot be ignored.
Critics argue that the discipling stage and the perfecting stage cannot be separated when breaking down barriers. C. René Padilla writes,
The breaking down of the barriers that separate people in the world was regarded as an essential aspect of the gospel, not merely as a result of it.
Evangelism would therefore involve a call to be incorporated into a new humanity that included all kinds of people. Conversion was never a merely religious
experience; it was also a way of becoming a member of a community where people would find their dignity in Christ rather than in a race, social status, or sex.16
Fueling the controversy, there exists also a false dichotomy between the HUP and koinonia.17 HUP opponents appear to measure koinonia by the level of diversity.18 Padilla writes,
The New Testament clearly shows that the apostles, while rejecting
‘assimilationist racism,’ never contemplated the possibility of forming homogeneous unit churches that would then express their unity in terms of interchurch relationships. Each church was meant to portray the oneness of its members regardless of their racial, cultural, or social differences, and in order to reach that the apostles suggested practical measures.19
15Ibid., 64-65, emphasis included.
16C. René Padilla, “The Unity of the Church and the Homogeneous Unit Principle,”
International Bulletin of Missionary Research 6, no. 1 (1982): 29, emphasis in original.
17As will be discussed, koinonia is a rich word with deep meaning and will be discussed below in greater detail. In the Bible, koinonia is most often translated as fellowship although participation, sharing, and contribution are also frequently used.
18Ralph Elliott writes, “This view [concerning HU’s] contrasts with the very understanding of the church as being inclusive of all people, as they are represented in the community of which I am a part.
At the same time, case study records make it clear that the church growth philosophy and methodology obviously succeed in building a ‘religious institution.’ Its greatest danger may be that it obviously succeeds.” Ralph H. Elliott, Church Growth That Counts (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1982), 13-14.
19Padilla, “The Unity of the Church and the Homogeneous Unit Principle,” 29.
7
This thesis is not suggesting that the HUP opponents’ definition of koinonia is diversity. Rather, as stated, it is suggesting that diversity appears to be a measuring stick of their understanding of koinonia. HUP opponents argue that when the HUP is
employed, the resulting “church” fails to, or is in danger of failing to, live up to the New Testament ideal of koinonia. Carl S. Dudley writes, “The homogeneous-unit principle of the church growth movement has emphasized a cultural sectarianism. This principle has been used to justify increased racial and economic segregation.”20 In other words, despite any pragmatic results of church growth that may occur in using the HUP, the use of the HUP in evangelism is not justified because the resulting level of diversity of the church is insufficient.
Diversity in the church or koinonia is also seen as the measuring stick of the church’s message of liberation. Ralph Elliot writes, “No matter how much an institution may grow numerically, if it neglects to contribute to the liberation of humankind in all walks of life, that successful institution is something less than the church.”21 Thus, the HUP as an evangelistic tool, no matter how effective or efficient it might be, should not be employed because it is in opposition to koinonia. However, as stated, and as will be explained later, this dichotomy is a false one.
20Carl S. Dudley, “Measuring Church Growth,” Religion Online, http://www.religion-
online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle.asp?title=1237.html (accessed March 28, 2013). If the HUP is seen as an ecclesiastical necessity in order for the church to grow, Dudley’s complaint is warranted.
However, when the HUP is properly understood as a phenomenological analysis in understanding why people respond differently to different people, then the church has a tool in its possession that will allow the church to more effectively reach people and to grow. Wagner writes, “In the first place, McGavran’s statement is descriptive, not normative. It is phenomenological, not theological.” Wagner, Church Growth
& the Whole Gospel, 167.
21Elliott, Church Growth That Counts, 67.
8 The Dilemma
The dilemma is whether or not the HUP should be used as an evangelistic tool.
Is the HUP a faithful attempt in fulfilling the Great Commission, or does it lead to churches being built on racism and elitism? Does the HUP hinder or help koinonia?
Does the HUP make a mockery of the unity of the church? Is the HUP biblical? Critics and proponents disagree on the answers to these questions. If the HUP can be found to be biblically defensible, theologically sound and missiologically appropriate, then it should be employed as an evangelistic tool.
Purpose and Goals
The purpose of this ministry research thesis was to demonstrate how the HUP is an excellent tool to reach and transform one’s culture for Christ. In fact, this thesis contends that the failure to recognize and utilize the HUP as a tool in evangelism can actually lead to the homogeneous churches that its opponents are so quick to criticize.
Consequently, the goals were that a clear understanding and definition of the HUP be actualized and that such an understanding and definition be analyzed and found to be biblically defensible, theologically sound, and missiologically appropriate.
After such an analysis was made, the North American landscape was analyzed in a variety of ways to underscore the vast diversity of American culture and the potential application and even necessity of implementing the HUP as an evangelistic and church growth tool. A survey of Virginia pastors for their possible use of the HUP was performed to gather insight and to provide further suggestions in applying the HUP.
Finally, implications for how the HUP can be used as an evangelistic and church growth tool in the North American context are discussed.
9 Rationale
Over the next fifty years, North America is projected to be increasingly diverse in its demographic makeup. 22 The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the primary
increase will be in Hispanic and Asian populations. In effect, the world is coming to America. Multiculturalism will be an ever increasing reality in all areas of the country.
In addition, religious pluralism and Christianity’s various self-understandings among its different theological camps (Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Liberals, Liberation
Theology, Catholicism, etc.) will continue to affect who, how, and when Christians evangelize.
A potentially great tool – the HUP – has received harsh and unfair criticism.
This criticism comes from the HUP being mislabeled and misunderstood and has caused this potentially great tool to be underutilized. A continuing effort to refute this criticism and to properly label and explain the HUP in order to bring out its potential is warranted in order to be wise stewards in proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Definitions
Definitions are important when discussing the HUP because, as previously stated, miscommunication is at the heart of the controversy concerning the HUP – especially when considering McGavran’s use of term discipling. One may define the following essential terms and key concepts somewhat differently, but this thesis will use the following definitions for clarity in communication.
22U.S. Bureau of the Census, “U.S. Census Bureau Projections Show a Slower Growing, Older, More Diverse Nation a Half Century from Now,” U.S. Bureau of the Census, http://www.census.gov/
newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html (accessed March 28, 2013).
10 Homogeneous Units
A homogeneous unit (HU) is “simply a section of society in which all the members have some characteristic in common.”23 That characteristic could be gender, geography, race, language, or age. By this definition, one can see how broad and elastic the term HU is.
To illustrate HUs, Figure 1 is offered as simple HUs based on gender. Figure 2 is offered as simple HUs based on geography. Figure 3 is offered a composite of the HU’s based on gender and geography from Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
The complexity of HU will increase with the number of characteristics. For example, suppose that from the population in Figure 3, there were four races represented and that the total population spoke five languages. There would be 120 different
potential subgroups within this population. Furthermore, if one also classified the
23McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 81, cf. 69.
Figure 1. Simple HUs illustrated:
gender relationship
Male Female
11
population into seven different age groups, there would be 840 different potential subgroups within this population. Continuing further, if one were to add to this classification items like musical preference, educational background, and religious beliefs, then, one can see the diverse nature of a population. While some characteristics of people may be easy to identify and classify, the real challenge and opportunity regarding HUs and evangelism is “people consciousness,” defined below.
Figure 2. Simple HUs illustrated:
geographic relationship Suburban
Rural
Metropolitan
Figure 3. HUs illustrated: gender and geographic relationship
Male – Rural
Male – Suburban Female – Suburban Female – Rural
Female – Metropolitan Male – Metropolitan
12 People Consciousness
People consciousness is when members of a HU “think of themselves as separate.”24 The relevance of people consciousness to evangelism comes in the degree of people consciousness that any one particular HU has and how the “barrier” of people consciousness can best be overcome. Concerning this relevance, McGavran writes,
The degree of people consciousness is an aspect of social structure that greatly influences when, how and to what extent the gospel will flow through that segment of the social order. Castes or tribes with high people consciousness will resist the gospel primarily because to them becoming a Christian means joining another people. They refuse Christ not for religious reasons, not because they love their sins, but precisely because they love their neighbors.
In India, Brahmins and many others whose people consciousness is very high discipline their members rigorously. They ostracize those who marry non-Brahmins and read the funeral ceremony over them. They have debased the blood and must be excluded.
It may be taken as axiomatic that whenever becoming a Christian is considered a racial rather than a religious decision, there the growth of the church will be exceedingly slow. . . .
The resistance of most Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims to the Christian faith does not arise primarily from theological considerations. . . . Their resistance arises primarily from fear that “becoming a Christian will separate me from my people.”
. . . The fact is that men and women, high and low, advanced and primitive, usually turn to Christian faith in numbers only when some way is found for them to become Christian without leaving their kith and kin.
The great obstacles to conversion are social, not theological…. It is patently true that among societies with high people consciousness those methods of propagating the gospel which enable individuals to accept Christ without renouncing their peoples are blessed of God to the growth of his church.25
People consciousness in a HU is illustrated in Figure 4. The thickness of the lines represents the degree of people consciousness, with the thicker lines representing high people consciousness.
24Ibid., 155.
25Ibid., 155-56.
13
In this hypothetical population, rural males and rural females have a low level of people consciousness whereas metropolitan males have the highest level of people consciousness. While this figure is simplistic, one can quickly understand how people may place barriers between them – barriers like gender, race, language, and religion.
The theoretical relationship between the HUP and people-consciousness is as follows. The greater a HU has people-consciousness, the harder it is for non-HU members to evangelize the HU. Also, the greater a HU has people-consciousness, the more likely that a HU member’s decision will affect other group member’s decisions.
Likewise, the less a HU has people-consciousness, the easier it will be for non-HU members to evangelize and the less likely that a HU member’s decision will affect other group member’s decisions. McGavran writes, “It takes no great acumen to see that when marked differences of color, stature, income, cleanliness, and education are present, nbelievers understand the Gospel better when expounded by their own kind of people.”26
26Ibid., 167.
Figure 4. People consciousness illustrated:
gender and geographic relationship Male – Rural
Male – Suburban Female – Suburban Female – Rural
Female – Metropolitan Male – Metropolitan
14 Ethnikitis and People-Blindness
Closely related to people consciousness are two church diseases: Ethnikitis and People-Blindness. There are churches that are “virtually an island of one kind of people, in the midst of a community of another kind of people, and very little communication between the two. Such a church has contracted what we call ‘ethnikitis.’ It begins to decline, first of all, because the people in the neighborhood are no longer being won into their neighborhood church.”27 People-blindness is “the malady that prevents us from seeing the important cultural differences that exist between groups of people living in geographical proximity to one another–differences that tend to create barriers to the acceptance of our message.”28
Koinonia
Because the concern for koinonia plays such a large part in the criticism of the HUP, its definition is expounded upon in this section. This definition will play an important role in understanding the biblical justification of the HUP in chapter 3.
Koinonia is the born-again relationship among believers that expresses itself in participation with one another in the gospel.29 From this definition, three important concepts of koinonia will be expounded upon: relationship, purpose, and
interdependency.
27C. Peter Wagner, The Healthy Church (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1996), 28.
28Ibid., 60.
29The definition is derived through a word analysis of κοινωνία, the root κοινός , and the verb form κοινωνέω. In chap.3, this definition will also be used for the church in order to relate and evaluate the HUP, koinonia, and the church.
15
Relationship. Koinonia’s root means “to share something in common.”30 The common relationship then becomes the basis of unity. Although koinonia means any sort of group or association, it is a favorite expression of the marriage relationship.31 In a biblical and Christian context, the rebirth by the Holy Spirit causes the common
relationship among believers and thus becomes the basis of their unity. By understanding koinonia in the context of the intimate and close relationship of marriage, one can see the mystical tie that binds two hearts as one, and it serves as a good analogy of the binding of Christian hearts in Christian love.32 Thus, koinonia is the intimate and mystical
relationship that Christians share one with another because of the rebirth by the Holy Spirit and their being the children of God.
Purpose. Koinonia is more than relationship; it is relationship with purpose.
Generally that purpose is very altruistic, and words like generosity, sharing, and
contributing are used in translating the Greek word into English. In a Christian context, the purpose of the church’s koinonia is God’s mission in the world. Thus, the unity of relationship is closely tied to the unity of purpose. As Christians, the unity of
relationship (being born again and being the children of God) and the unity of purpose (God’s mission) both help to establish koinonia in the church.
30Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and trans. William F.
Arndt, F. Wilber Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), s.v. “kοινωνέω.”
31Ibid., s.v. “kοινωνία.”
32Col 2:2, “Their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ.”
16
Interdependency. But relationship with a purpose is still deficient when understanding koinonia. Koinonia is not actualized until believers participate with other believers in working toward their common purpose. It is the outward expression
(participation with one another in accomplishing God’s mission) of an inward reality (the relationship among believers through the rebirth by the Holy Spirit). This
interdependency can be seen in Paul’s understanding of the church as the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31.
Evangelism
There is debate concerning the definition of evangelism. The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον simply means good news, and the verb form εὐαγγελίζω means announcing the good news.33 For the Christian, the good news is the gospel of Christ Jesus. The debate focuses on the question, “what does it mean to announce the good news?” The division of thought centers around three categories: presence, proclamation and persuasion.34
Presence. Presence evangelism states that as long as Christians are
performing “good works” (such as building hospitals and schools or feeding the poor) in the presence of unbelievers, the church is practicing evangelism. In this understanding, evangelism is evaluated by ministries performed and the emphasis is on more of a social gospel.
33Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “εὐαγγέλιον” and “εὐαγγελίζω”
respectively.
34Wagner, Church Growth & The Whole Gospel, 54-57.
17
Proclamation. Proclamation evangelism states that Christians need to verbally proclaim the gospel and that simply doing “good works” without the
proclamation of the gospel is insufficient to be called evangelism. Thus, evangelism is evaluated on the faithfulness of the people in proclaiming the good news. This
understanding of evangelism is consistent with the Greek meaning of the word.
Persuasion. Persuasion evangelism goes beyond proclamation evangelism in that it requires the hearers’ positive response to the good news. The positive response is not simply a decision made for Christ, but rather a decision that is characterized by responsible church membership or fruit-bearing disciples. In other words, if the hearer responds positively to the good news, then evangelism has taken place. Thus, evangelism is evaluated based upon the number of positive responses that were made. The Church Growth Movement (CGM) considers this understanding to be consistent with the biblical intent of the word.
Persuasion evangelism is concerned with results. . . . Persuasion evangelism is intentional preaching with a view of bringing men to Christ and into responsible church membership. . . . Disciples are countable and their number can be expanded.
Hence, disciples are the result of evangelism. The term “make disciples” means to bring a person to Christ, but it includes more than getting a person to make a deci- sion for Christ; it implies motivating the person to follow Christ as his disciple.35
Responsible church membership. McGavran’s understanding of evangelism is similar to persuasion evangelism.
God, who “became flesh and dwelt among us,” is primarily concerned that people be saved, and his mission must also be concerned. Christian outreach in today’s responsive world demands a theology of the harvest that the New Testament
35Elmer L. Towns, “Evangelism: The Why and How,” in Church Growth: State of the Art, ed.
C. Peter Wagner (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988), 44-45.
18
uniquely offers. Yet at this critical time many Christians are firmly committed to a theology of seed sowing, which might also be called a theology of search.36
McGavran saw evangelism as “incomplete” until one became a responsible follower of Jesus Christ as evidenced by responsible church membership. Rainer explains, “He saw evangelism as more than just proclaiming of the gospel; he insisted that evangelization is incomplete until the person becomes a responsible disciple of Christ.”37 McGavran calls this process “discipling.”38 Thus, evangelism can be evaluated “numerically” through responsible church membership or fruit-bearing
discipleship, which is at the core of the CGM: “the heart of church growth is to see those new Christians develop into fruit-bearing disciples of Jesus Christ.”39
It cannot be overemphasized that the majority of controversy over the HUP comes from McGavran’s focus of the HUP in the discipling stage. As stated, discipling or evangelism includes the turning of one to faith from non-faith and is evidenced by responsible church membership. Perfecting, which is not evangelism, refers to the individual as growing in grace, which would also include the social dimensions of the gospel message. The HUP deals with evangelism, not perfecting. McGavran writes,
Discipling is one thing, perfecting is another. This point gains importance because many a Christian leader confuses perfecting for discipling. Distinguishing
36McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 24.
37Rainer, The Book of Church Growth, 35.
38McGavran actually delineates between three types of discipling: D-1, D-2 and D-3: “D-1 would mean the turning of a non-Christian society for the first time to Christ. D-2 would mean the turning of individuals from nonfaith to faith in Christ and their incorporation into a church. D-3 would mean teaching an existing Christian as many of the truths of the Bible as possible.” McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 123.
39Rainer, The Book of Church Growth, 20.
19
these two stages is essential for those who lead peoples [HU’s] to become Christian.
The second stage overlaps the first, but it cannot precede it without destroying it.40
E-0, E-1, E-2, and E-3. Evangelism may be divided up into four categories:
E-0, E-1, E-2, and E-3.41 E-0 evangelism is evangelizing existing church members. E-1 evangelism is evangelizing non-church members within the churches’ cultural, linguistic, and ethnic unit. E-2 evangelism is evangelizing non-church members outside the
church’s cultural, linguistic, and ethnic unit, but in a unit that is similar. E-3 evangelism is evangelizing non-church members outside the church’s cultural, linguistic, and ethnic unit with that unit being unfamiliar. It is obvious then that the difficulty of the
evangelistic endeavor increases as one’s cultural, linguistic, and ethnic unit differences increase.42
Church mandates. God’s work in the world through the church is understood as two mandates: the evangelistic mandate and the cultural mandate. Wagner writes,
“The term ‘evangelistic mandate’ forms a pair with ‘cultural mandate.’ They are as clear and useful as any expressions I have found to describe the two major areas of human responsibility in carrying out God’s program in the world.”43 The evangelistic mandate is
40McGavran, Bridges of God (New York: Friendship Press, 1981), 16.
41McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 47-48. Credit for this typology in the
missiological and church growth vocabulary belongs to Ralph D. Winter. This typology is stating the same idea as the relationship between evangelism and the people consciousness of an HU as was discussed above. Again, note that the reference is descriptive of the culture and how it relates to evangelizing different cultural groups.
42The difficulty relates directly to people-consciousness as discussed, above. The greater a HU has people-consciousness, the harder it is for non-HU members to evangelize the HU.
43Wagner, Church Growth & The Whole Gospel, 51.
20
simply the call of the church to reach and save the lost.44 The cultural mandate is the call of the church to minister to the needs of society through social service and to reform society through social action. Wagner writes, “As the church moves into the world to fulfill the cultural mandate, two general avenues of potential ministry open up. Students of the social concerns of the church have called them by different names. I prefer the terms social service and social action.”45 These two mandates together are the mission of the church and are often referred to as holistic mission.46
While both mandates are by definition mandatory, in church growth theology, the evangelistic mandate is given priority and urgency over the cultural mandate.
Wagner writes, “When I argue that the evangelistic mandate has priority over the cultural mandate, this does not mean that I have any intention of neglecting the cultural mandate.
But recognizing the priority of the evangelist mandate is, in my opinion, the best starting point for the maximum fulfillment of both the cultural and the evangelistic mandates.”47
Furthermore, Wagner distinguishes between evangelism, nurture and service (cultural mandate) as three distinct activities in how God works through the church:
Evangelism (whether E-1, E-2, or E-3) is, as we defined it in Chapter 3, making disciples of Jesus Christ. It is presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit in such a way that men and women will believe in him as their savior
44Ibid., 51.
45Ibid., 35, emphasis in original. Wagner defines social service as “the kind of social ministry geared to meet the needs of individuals and groups of persons in a direct and immediate way.” Ibid., 36.
Wagner defines social action as “the kind of social ministry geared toward changing social structures.”
Ibid., 36.
46Ibid., 91, emphasis in original – “I now believe that the mission of the church embraces both the cultural and the evangelistic mandates. I believe in what is now being called ‘holistic mission.’”
47Ibid., 87, emphasis in original. In a conversation, Charles E. Lawless, Jr., former Dean of the Billy Graham School of Evangelism, Missions and Church Growth of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stated that Wagner has revised his position and that they cannot be separated and prioritized.
21
and serve him as their Lord in the fellowship of his church. The message of
evangelism is directed to the unbeliever, not to believers. Its goal is to win souls, to see sinners saved by the grace of God, and enter into the kingdom of God as
responsible disciples.
Christian nurture (whether N-1, N-2, or N-3) is a ministry directed toward Christians, not unbelievers. Its objective is helping them develop in their faith. It enables spiritual “children” who may be “carried about with every wind of doctrine”
to grow into perfect people “unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13-14). Helping a Christian pray more fervently, read the Bible more intelligently, sing more melodiously, witness more aggressively, or give more generously is not evangelism. It is nurture.
Service (whether S-1, S-2, or S-3) is neither evangelism nor nurture. Its focus is the implementation of the cultural mandate. It helps meet the physical, social or material needs of people. It can be directed toward believers or unbelievers or both.
It includes social action and social service. God may use service to open the hearts and minds of men and women to the message of the gospel, or he may not. But service doesn’t save sinners–evangelism does.48
The Principle of Receptivity
The principle of receptivity “postulates that at a given point in time certain people groups, families, and individuals will be more receptive to the message of the Gospel than others.”49 McGavran explains the importance to church growth:
“Fluctuating receptivity is a most prominent aspect of human nature and society. It marks the urban and the rural, advanced and primitive, educated and illiterate. It vitally affects every aspect of world evangelization, and must be studied extensively if church growth is to be understood.”50 This principle or theory has a very pragmatic value:
“Since resources of time, personnel, talent, money, and energy are all limited, decisions have to be made as to where they can best be used. This necessarily involves setting
48Wagner, Church Growth & the Whole Gospel, 94, emphasis added.
49Ibid., 77.
50McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 179.
22
priorities.”51 It cannot be overstated that the principle of receptivity is understood as God’s working in His world. Thus, understanding receptive people is not simply a
“human” or “unspiritual” task. Rather, it is the mark of wise steward who is being good and faithful to the Great Commission.
Limitations
As with any thesis, this treatise attempts to advance a new point of view resulting from research and prayerful reflection. Although the history of the HUP is discussed, it is not the intention of this thesis to give a full history of the HUP. The focus is on McGavran’s original use and understanding of the term and how the HUP can be used today in the North American context. Some authors, like Wagner in particular, may have changed certain viewpoints over time. It is not the purpose of this thesis to explore changes in thought in the various authors through the years.
General Direction
Chapter 2 presents a clear understanding of the HUP. Chapter 3 examines that understanding from a biblical, theological, and missiological perspective, with the
emphasis being on the biblical perspective. Chapter 4 presents results of a survey from a defined sub-population of pastors and their familiarity with and use of the HUP. Chapter 5 offers some practical applications of the HUP as an evangelistic tool.
51Wagner, Church Growth & the Whole Gospel, 77.
23 CHAPTER 2
THE HUP: TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION
This chapter presents three definitions of the HUP: a classical definition, a dictionary definition, and a working definition. The classical definition will be restated, and one of the main problems with the use of the classical definition will be noted. A dictionary definition is given for comparative purposes. The dictionary definition highlights the need for a working definition. Then, the bulk of the chapter explores the context of how and why the HUP was theorized. From an understanding of this context, important concepts were revealed. These important concepts lead to a new definition or a working definition of the HUP. Finally, how the HUP could be used was illustrated in three situations: international missionary field, church planting site, and an established church setting.
Classical Definition
As stated in chapter 1, the HUP “states an undeniable fact. Human beings do build barriers around their own societies,” and “people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers.”1 This quote is what this thesis refers to as the classical definition of the HUP.
1Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. C. Peter Wagner (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990), 163, emphasis added.
24
This classical definition was succinctly explained by McGavran: “It takes no great acumen to see that when marked differences of color, stature, income, cleanliness, and education are present, unbelievers understand the Gospel better when expounded by their own kind of people.”2 For McGavran, then, barriers and differences in the
discipling stage should be respected. The controversy arises when those barriers or differences are respected and the resulting church still has those barriers or differences of race, language, class, et cetera.
In the classical definition of the HUP, it is easy for critics to fixate on the words “racial” or “class.” For example, when Bruce W. Fong wrote a book critiquing the HUP, he clearly stated that his emphasis would be on the racial aspect: “While the HUP theory deals with the three general areas of race, language and class differences, it is the issue of race or ethnicity that will dominate this discussion.”3
When the focus was on race or ethnicity, the HUP quickly becomes a lightning rod for controversy. Instead of being understood as an instrumentation of evangelism, it is misunderstood by many as a justification of racial or class segregation in the church.
As racial and class segregation is an unacceptable foundation of church unity, the HUP could be attacked as being an unacceptable instrumentation of evangelism:
Some of the criticisms have been uninformed and unfair. But, certain arguments are worthy of careful scrutiny and wise attention. In particular, brotherhood and unity are essential to the church; but, they would be damaged by the application of the HUP theory. The application of the HUP theory would excuse the church for standing apart from the world on the matter of racial unity. In response, proponents
2Ibid., 167.
3Bruce W. Fong, Racial Equality in the Church: A Critique of the Homogeneous Unit
Principle in Light of a Practical Theology Perspective (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1996), xx.
25
admit to the potential misuse of the theory but also clarify that their intent is theologically, Biblically, and practically defensible.4
Dictionary Definition
One dictionary definition of the HUP eliminates the explosive words of race or ethnicity: “The homogeneous unit principle is a serious attempt to respect the dignity of individuals and the social units to which they belong, and to encourage their decisions for Christ to be religious decisions rather than social decisions.”5 While this definition is certainly more innocuous, it does not bring out some of the original thinking, and more importantly, some of the context behind the term.6
For example, the HUP was part of a stewardship concern of McGavran. The stewardship concern included an understanding of accountability and responsibility. In addition, the HUP was also was part of a harvest mentality in evangelistic efforts.
Perhaps most importantly, McGavran had a very clear understanding of God at work and the HUP was part of the process of recognizing God at work. Therefore, to better
understand the HUP, it is both prudent and necessary to analyze the HUP in the context that it was theorized and according to the man who theorized it.
4Ibid., xix.
5A. Scott Moreau, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), s.v. “Homogeneous Unit Principle,” by C. Peter Wagner.
6It would be preposterous to suggest that the Peter Wagner did not understand the original thinking or the context behind the term HUP. What is being argued is that there is more to the HUP than this dictionary definition encompasses. By failing to encompass more of the original thinking behind the term and context of the term, this innocuous dictionary definition does little to demonstrate how the HUP is an excellent tool to reach and transform one’s culture for Christ, which is the purpose of this research ministry thesis. By analyzing the HUP in the context that it was theorized and according to the man who theorized it, important concepts will be revealed which will flesh out a stronger and more helpful definition of the HUP.
26
Working Definition
When the context of why the HUP was theorized is analyzed, and when the man who theorized it is studied, key concepts will emerge and a working definition of the HUP can be identified and formulated. This working definition will serve as a basis for a biblical, theological, and missiological evaluation of the HUP in chapter three. Thus, it is now essential that Donald A. McGavran and his works be discussed.
Evangelistic Heart
Donald McGavran, the father of the CGM, is also the originator of the term HUP.7 Simply put, McGavran had a heart for evangelism. He reveals his heart’s desire when he writes concerning God’s desire:
Among other desires of God-in-Christ, he beyond question wills that lost persons be found–that is, be reconciled to himself. Most cordially admitting that God has other purposes, we should remember that we serve a God who finds persons. He has an overriding concern that men and women should be redeemed.
However we understand the word, biblical witness is clear that people are “lost.”
The finding God wants them found–that is, brought into a redemptive relationship to Jesus Christ where, baptized in his name, they become part of his household. He is not pleased when many findable sheep remain straggling on the mountain, shivering in the bitter wind. The more found, the better pleased is God.8
7As discussed earlier, adding the term “principle” to “homogeneous unit” was actually done by Peter Wagner. Chuck Van Engen, “Is the Church for Everyone? Planting Multi-Ethnic Congregations in North America,” Global Missiology, http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/viewFile/
122/353 (accessed March 28, 2013). As will be discussed, the word “principle” in the term HUP should be understood as a task or a tool.
Also, by recognizing McGavran as the originator of the term and as the Father of the CGM, the forerunners of the CGM and influences on McGavran, like Roland Allen and J. Waskom Pickett, should be noted. For a brief summary, see Thom Rainer, The Book of Church Growth (Nashville: Broadman Press), 27-31.
8McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 21, emphasis McGavran’s.
27
The CGM is considered to have its beginning in 1955 when McGavran published his book, The Bridges of God. In this magnum opus, McGavran asks this simple question, “How do peoples become Christian?”9 The question that McGavran was asking was an evangelistic question. The HUP was a part of the answer to that question. Therefore, any reasonable understanding of the HUP must be put into the evangelism context.10
Stewardship Strategy
McGavran’s vocation was that of a missionary. As a missionary, McGavran struggled with limited financial resources and the stewardship issue of how best to spend those monies. An egalitarian approach to missionary spending and budgets would dictate that monies be spent equally, irrespective of any difference in evangelistic effectiveness.
McGavran was opposed to such an egalitarian approach to missionary spending:
“Mission administrators must not–dare not–act as if church growth did not matter. This is to betray the gospel. Mere continuation of an uncritical egalitarianism is not the answer.”11
Harvest mentality. In McGavran’s missiological thought, results or a harvest mentality were important. He writes, “It is not enough to search for lost sheep. The
9Donald A. McGavran, Bridges of God (New York: Friendship Press, 1955), 1.
10In McGavran’s understanding of evangelism, he distinguishes between discipling and perfecting. He explains, “[The church] always has a two-fold task: winning unbelievers to Christ and growing in grace. While these tasks overlap, they are distinct. Neither should be slighted.” McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 124. For McGavran, discipling is evangelism; perfecting is not evangelism.
11Ibid., 59.
28
Master Shepherd is not pleased with a token search; he wants his sheep found.”12 However, it appears that his contemporaries’ major accountability concern was simply
“faithfulness in proclamation,” and others just presence evangelism without serious regard for the growth of the church.
Christian mission should take serious account of the many churches marked by slight growth. Specialists in carrying water abound, but there are few masons. Tons of mortar arrive, but few stones. The wall does not go up. Slight church growth characterizes many whole denominations, both liberal and conservative. Worse, the lack of growth is taken as natural and unavoidable.13
Focusing on the HUP was a partial response from a man who was concerned about the lack of growth of God’s church. Thus, the HUP should be understood within the context of stewardship.
Responsible accountability. Two major concerns of stewardship are accountability and responsibility. McGavran writes,
Sometimes, when shepherds return empty-handed, it is because the sheep refuse to be found and flee at their approach. Sometimes, however, empty-handedness becomes a habit and is caused by peering into ravines where there are no sheep, resolutely neglecting those who long to be found in favor of those who refuse to be.
Sometimes it is a question of sticking for decades to methods that have proved ineffective. Suffice it to say that lack of church growth is an unnecessary trait, or experience, of many branches of the church and many missionary societies. It can, and should be remedied.14
The HUP was part of a strategy devised by McGavran to help remedy his stewardship concern of the lack of growth of God’s church. McGavran’s writings show
12Ibid., 6.
13Ibid., 34.
14Ibid., 36.
29
that keeping track of HUs was a task to be done rather than just a principle to follow.
The analysis of the growth of HUs was a fairly simple task to meet one’s responsibility of
“doing one’s part” in one’s accountability to God.
One can hope that, as church growth comes to be taken with greater seriousness, homogenous unit growth will be recorded separately. This small addition to routine procedures would enable leaders of the churches to see which clusters of
congregations were growing and which were not. The reasons for growth would then become clearer.15
Receptive People
Using numerical statistics, it is fairly easy to identify when and where a church is growing. However, the significant question is “Why is it growing?” One reason why a church grows is that there are people who are receptive to the gospel. The question progresses to, “Do these receptive people have some characteristic in common?” If these receptive people have some characteristic in common, then one can likely identify a HU.
It is essential to note how people become receptive to the gospel. For McGav- ran, receptive people were God’s work – part of His sovereignty. This understanding of God at work or God’s initiative was clearly expressed in McGavran’s writings:
We have described certain human factors in church growth. We shall go on to describe others. But we are not describing a human enterprise. The redemption of the world is the chief concern of God. This is the central doctrine in the Christian religion. This is what the incarnation was to achieve. This was the purpose of the Cross. The great Commission, comprising the last words of Christ during His earthly ministry, describes what must be done if the purposes of God in Christ are carried out.
The growth of the Church is always brought about by the action of the Holy Spirit. As in the New Testament Church, so today, the Holy Spirit leads, convicts of sin, converts, builds up, selects missionaries and thrusts them out to ripened fields.
The concern of Christians today must be to understand the workings of the Holy
15Ibid., 104.
30
Spirit and to be open to His leading. We talk of factors producing readiness to accept the Saviour-but who produces the factors? It is largely the Holy Spirit of God. We but describe the way in which He acts. He upbuilds the Church, extends and nurtures it. Men are the channel through which He works.16
Effective Work
Being effective and efficient in reaching people for Christ is at the intersection of one’s stewardship responsibility and one identifying where God is at work in making people receptive. The evangelist is merely a channel through which God works. When God’s work can be identified in HUs, then the evangelist can have confidence in the evangelistic efforts because the evangelist understands that God is already at work in that HU. McGavran writes, “one of the better ways of motivating Christians to effective evangelism is to persuade them that growth is possible and to show them how the Holy Spirit has caused it.”17 For McGavran, “effective and efficient” is analogous to
pragmatic. McGav-ran’s pragmatism should be understood within these three
parameters: (1) how God works in making people receptive to the gospel; (2) how one responds to God’s work in identifying those receptive people; and, (3) how one is used by God in evangelizing those receptive people. McGavran argues that evangelism is most effective and efficient when receptive HU’s are identified and evangelized: “Whenever people consciousness is high . . . the correct policy of evangelism is to disciple each homogeneous unit out to its fringes.”18
16 Donald A. McGavran, How Churches Grow: The New Frontiers of Mission (New York:
Friendship Press, 1959), 55.
17McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 87.
18Ibid., 176-77.